[timey]

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.

...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?

[Space Flow]

correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.

Off topic but timey had it right. As you get further from a centre of gravity time runs faster.
Example; time runs faster on the surface of the moon than on the surface of the Earth. Lower gravity dilation.
The difference just as a back of envelope calculation is only about 1 in a billion, but it is there just the same.
That means that the surface of the Moon has aged about four and a half years more over the life of the solar system, But the effect would still be there.

[guest39538]

correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.

Off topic but timey had it right. As you get further from a centre of gravity time runs faster.
Example; time runs faster on the surface of the moon than on the surface of the Earth. Lower gravity dilation.
The difference just as a back of envelope calculation is only about 1 in a billion, but it is there just the same.
That means that the surface of the Moon has aged about four and a half years more over the life of the solar system, But the effect would still be there.

So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?


You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?



You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.

[Space Flow]

...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?

In theory, the gravitational effect of spacetime by matter never disappears. It just weakens by the inverse square law as you state, but at some level it still exists as you approach infinity.
Of course practically if there was such a thing as a completely empty Void and you somehow placed yourself in the middle of it, and also arranged you angular momentum so you were equidistant from all concentrations of matter surrounding this void you would by curved space interpretation be in almost totally flat spacetime and your clock rate would be running close to as fast as is possible.
Again that constitutes a very special case and reality complicates things a bit.
There is no such thing as a totally empty Void that we have been able to find.
Such may not exist.

[guest39538]

...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?

In theory, the gravitational effect of spacetime by matter never disappears. It just weakens by the inverse square law as you state, but at some level it still exists as you approach infinity.
Of course practically if there was such a thing as a completely empty Void and you somehow placed yourself in the middle of it, and also arranged you angular momentum so you were equidistant from all concentrations of matter surrounding this void you would by curved space interpretation be in almost totally flat spacetime and your clock rate would be running close to as fast as is possible.
Again that constitutes a very special case and reality complicates things a bit.
There is no such thing as a totally empty Void that we have been able to find.
Such may not exist.

You can't find the empty void because there is already things filling it.   Remove the matter,EMR and CBMR from the Universe, what do you  have remaining?


Remove the outer galaxies the minimal universe is the milky way. Space would relatively contract.

[Space Flow]

So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?


You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?



You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.

No that appears to be what you are reading even though it is not what I am writing.
I have said none of those things.
I am not talking about Caesium or any clock.
Those are your words not mine.
I was talking about time. Not a measure of time, but time itself. Cause and effect.
And as far as what I mean by off topic, I am not a multitasker.
I was asking you a question that you appear to be avoiding answering. That is the topic in the discussion between you and me.
One step at a time mr Box.

[guest39538]

So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?


You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?



You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.

No that appears to be what you are reading even though it is not what I am writing.
I have said none of those things.
I am not talking about Caesium or any clock.
Those are your words not mine.
I was talking about time. Not a measure of time, but time itself. Cause and effect.
And as far as what I mean by off topic, I am not a multitasker.
I was asking you a question that you appear to be avoiding answering. That is the topic in the discussion between you and me.
One step at a time mr Box.

Sorry for my impatience,  what is your next question.

[Space Flow]

Sorry for my impatience,  what is your next question.

I can not formulate a next question until my previous one is answered.

Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 10:41:45
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:19:28
I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

I would ask you to expand on that please. And in expanding that explanation reference the fact that the effect has been shown to be measurable with one clock stationary on the Ground floor of a building, with the other clock stationary on the top floor of the same building.

I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.

Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:54:21
I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.
Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.

[alancalverd]

it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself

Nor does anyone else. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. Nothing more, nothing less, no other words. We measure time by various means, the best of which is the cesium clock.

A yardstick or a statute chain is not "length itself": it is the means by which we measure length in a nonaccelerating reference frame.

Don't accuse other people of talking nonsense until you have acquired the knowledge to distinguish it, and the humility to use their language correctly.

[alancalverd]

and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.

Not quite true. GM/r² is never zero except at some very special, infinitesimal, evanescent, lagrange points where the field vectors of all galaxies cancel.

[guest39538]

it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself

Nor does anyone else. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. Nothing more, nothing less, no other words. We measure time by various means, the best of which is the cesium clock.

A yardstick or a statute chain is not "length itself": it is the means by which we measure length in a nonaccelerating reference frame.

Don't accuse other people of talking nonsense until you have acquired the knowledge to distinguish it, and the humility to use their language correctly.

You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?

[Space Flow]

You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?

Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".

[jeffreyH]

Gravity is not defined by GR. Length contraction is a very tricky subject. More on this when I have time.

[jeffreyH]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
"Length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object."

Note decrease in length of an object and not spacetime. However an object in motion, normally it is stated as accelerating, will radiate gravitational waves which will in turn affect other objects in the vicinity. One does need to bear in mind that convention says it is only accelerating objects that radiate gravitational waves. Correct me if I am wrong.

[guest39538]

You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?

Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".

I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.

[Space Flow]

I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.[/b]?

So it is clear as you just stated that you are intentionally and deliberately intending to misquote anything I say.
I have tried to communicate with you mr Box.
But this is it. No more communication attempts from me.
It is one thing to be misunderstood for whatever reasons. When you make a statement like above, you declare yourself as a deliberate liar.
I can not stand liars.

Good bye.

[timey]

Box, this is a great question, but I've moved my quest for a deeper understanding to another thread, and apologise for high jacking your thread to my purpose... All the best.

Alan, Space Flow and Jeff,  I've furthered your posts here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65776.0

[guest39538]

Box, this is a great question, but I've moved my quest for a deeper understanding to another thread, and apologise for high jacking your thread to my purpose... All the best.

Alan, Space Flow and Jeff,  I've furthered your posts here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65776.0

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

''To explain: my interest is in 'distance' rather than length.  Distance being the space between things, and length being the distance occupied by matter.  Clearly 'a' distance between things that are moving at different speeds relative to each other is variable.  But... are we saying that distance itself, empty space between 'things', can be stretched or contracted?''

You are asking the same question as I asked, I understand it well. Yes science says that the space itself behind the light and matter and CBMR, is made of a like substance and they called it space-time, they say this space-time can bend and stretch and curve and contract and expand.(and even wave now apparently)

However I totally disagree with this, it is an absolute invariant stationary reference frame in my honest and rational reasoned opinion. It is a void, and all things in motion, are in motion relative to the void.


However, although the constant-'constant makes the stationary reference frame available to vision, If I am correct the space-time does have some physical presence but not in the form of solidity.

I think space-time is mass, I think the space-time is negative energy, I think space-time  is infinite and timeless, I think space-time always wants to invert time, I think space-time is attracted to space- time and always centripetally to any point of space-time, time wants to expand, time is positive, time stops space-time ending time.


Distance is absolute, an invariant, a constant, lengths occupy space-time, space-time wants mass dimensions to compress, but time wants mass dimensions to expand into space-time.

Space-time and matter time are the combination of time, the unification of space-time and time allow existence for an amount of time, and the battle continues within us all.


added - this will sound wacked out even for me, the Egyptian's were correct, the Sun is technically ''God'', only the positive of the Stars prevents time ending and a Universal collapse.


t_s+t_m=t


Relative to the length between any two observers of one another, space-time is always horizontal relative to the space-time stationary reference frame.

[alancalverd]

Please yourself! If you use both hands, you won't be able to type drivel at the same time.

[Ethos_]

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.